When it comes to the veepstakes, the waiting, apparently, is the hardest part.

At least it is for the political press corps, which seems to have gone completely nutso in the last 24 hours. I'm not talking about the constant speculation they--we--have indulged in regarding the unknown (and unknowable) identify of Barack Obama's running mate. That's par for the course. I'm referring instead to the pleading phone calls to Chicago; the unctuous emails to inside "sources"; and, most of all, the absurd reportorial throngs surrounding the houses of the favored few still thought to be in the running--all in the hopes that somehow, someway something will happen that will award me the big scoop (as opposed to all the other hacks loitering in Joe Biden's driveway or telling Bill Burton "you don’t understand the kind of pressure I am under").

Seriously. If the MSM took all the time, money and talent its currently spending on spilling beans scheduled to spill within a matter of hours anyway--all for inside-the-Beltway bragging rights, no less--and devoted them instead to breaking stories on, say, stuff that mattered, the public might not hate us quite so much. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for obsessing over the veepstakes. But what have all the calls, messages and stakeouts gotten us?

Yesterday, for example, the good folks at ABC News's Political Radar blog reported that Biden reached out the window of his pickup at precisely 9:15 a.m. to hand a box of coffee and a dozen bagels from the local Brew Ha Ha Espresso Cafe to the gaggle of reporters waiting outside his Wilmington, Del. home. "All the reporters and camera people had their video cameras trained on him, so there was a moment where no one understood he was giving the bagels to us," wrote Z. Byron Wolf. "One reporter was so flustered that he asked if Biden had talked to 'Senator O'Biden.'" Given that Biden drove off without a word, apparently not. Later, Wolf resurfaced to inform us that Biden had "left his house for the second time today" with a "load of wood in the back of his pickup," adding that "upon his return from disposing of the logs, Biden pulled up in his pickup, saying he had nothing to report"--other than the fact it had been "a successful dump."

Meanwhile, Wolf's colleague Matt Jaffe filed an item from the Washington D.C. yard of Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, breaking news that "a large black gym bag got stuck on the door of a car driven by a friend of Bayh's as it pulled out of his garage." He continued:

When the car reached the top of the tree-lined residential road, Bayh, sitting on the passenger side, opened his door and the bag fall out into the street. And then, as if nothing had happened, the car drove away, leaving the tag-along bag stranded right in the path of oncoming traffic. Members of the media staked out at the residence stood around confused about the bizarre scene, before one especially conscientious reporter walked up the hill to pick up the bag. Yours truly took the bag, weighed down with "Spartans" lacrosse gear, back to Bayh's house, dropping it off on the front porch.

Crisis averted. As for Tim Kaine, he spent the day "traveling in a black Chevy Trailblazer while a large bus full of staff trails behind him"--and telling reporters (one, twice, three times!) "I really don't know" whom Obama is going to pick. Of course, if sartorial clues--or the fine-tuned antennae of MSNBC's Mike Memoli and Carrie Dann--are to be trusted, Biden is all but a lock. According to Memoli and Dann, writing this afternoon, the "Biden of stakeouts past--the one who handed out bagels and willingly stopped for quick chats--is gone," replaced by a gentleman who wore "more formal attire" as he "rode shotgun... in the car of a staffer" and "act[ed], dare we say, more vice presidential."

Thankfully, our long national nightmare--I say that as both a citizen and as a reporter who sympathizes with my poor counterparts at ABC and MSNBC--is nearly over. Speaking to USA Today's Kathy Kiely this afternoon, Obama has finally, blessedly said that yes, he has chosen a running mate--even though he wouldn't divulge who the lucky guy or gal was. "I won't comment on anything else until I introduce our running mate to the world," he added. "That's all you're going to get out of me." I expect Obama to call the winner this evening and send out a text message to supporters announcing his pick early Friday morning.

In the meantime, if you need some bagels, you know where to go.
 

 

 

 

More

A Guest Post by Brian No  

John McCain's recent comments to a Colorado newspaper that a 1922 seven-state agreement governing the use of the Colorado River "obviously needs to be renegotiated over time" may sound completely innocuous, perhaps even sensible, to most people.

But to Colorado voters, McCain might as well have said he likes to eat cute puppies for breakfast. It's hard to explain to a non-Coloradan the outsized significance of the Colorado River--and its coveted snowmelt water--within the state. "Over my dead body," Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) said in a statement. To which Republican senate candidate Bob Schaffer added, "Over my cold, dead, political carcass." Get the point?

In this arid region of the country, rural farmers depend on the river's water, and after enduring the worst drought since the 18^th century in recent years, any notion that Scottsdale golfers and Bellagio gamblers need more water than they're currently allotted is basically Rule #1 under What Not to Say in Colorado. Just as Yucca Mountain is a nuclear issue in Nevada-pun intended-Coloradans often quote Mark Twain, who's rumored to have said, "Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." Many local pundits in Colorado are already asking whether "McCain just lo[st] Colorado."

For decades, Colorado has been a reliable red state in presidential elections, but this year the Centennial State is shaping up to be a true battleground--possibly playing a decisive role in the Electoral College math. The DNC's decision to host its convention here was no accident. Recent polls have the race neck-and-neck, with the latest averages from Real Clear Politics showing McCain and Obama tied at about 45 percent. If Obama is able to add Iowa and New Mexico to John Kerry's 2004 map, then pick off Colorado's nine electoral votes, he'll win the election.

At first glance, Colorado is a state where McCain should be easily ahead. Since 1964, it's gone blue just once--when Ross Perot garnered 24 percent of the votes and boosted Bill Clinton to victory in 1992. Furthermore, registered Republicans outnumber Democrats, with Colorado Springs--home to James Dobson's Focus on the Family--emerging as a major evangelical base. And remember Tom Tancredo? He's represents a Denver suburb. The fact that McCain is a familiar face from a neighboring state should also earn him some support.

That said, Colorado has experienced a Democratic renaissance in recent years. In 2004, there was only one Democrat who held a statewide office. Today, Democrats control the legislature, the governor's mansion, four of seven House districts and one of two Senate seats, with Democratic Rep. Mark Udall favored to win the other this November. Just like the rest of the country, the economy, energy prices and the Iraq War have emerged as top concerns, helping to fuel Colorado's "purple-ization." But there are other, more permanent trends at play as well. The burgeoning Latino population and an influx of young high-tech professionals from places like California and Texas have made Colorado a more hospitable climate for Democrats in recent decades. And historically, Mountain West voters have been known for their libertarian streak, often eschewing party loyalty. Simply put, people in the Mountain West want to be left alone. It's no surprise that independents make up the second biggest voting group in Colorado.

Whether Obama can win Colorado is up in the air. Despite the changing demographics and the unpopularity of the current administration, it's still a right-of-center state in a conservative region of the country. But Colorado voters have been kind to the pragmatic, unpretentious, authentic politician-regardless of party affiliation.

McCain was seemingly speaking as an Arizonan when he made his recent water gaffe, but his suggestion that Coloradans give up more of its scarcest resource could very well cost him votes this November. Obama, despite his advantages in cash and national mood, is fighting against history in trying to win Colorado. If he wants to take the state, he'll need all the help he can get. In other words, Obama would be foolish not to exploit what was a shocking heresy on McCain's part--at least to the ears of Coloradans.

Previous Colorado coverage:
Can Obama Win Out West?
A Plan to Swing Colorado
 

More

In her Asia Rising column, Melinda Liu writes on the debate in China about the country's obsession with bringing home the most Olympic gold medals:

China's shock—some called it "mourning"—over champion hurdler Liu Xiang's withdrawal due to injury Monday from the Olympics is bigger than a single athlete, albeit a very charismatic one. His dramatic pullout has roiled discussion on a number of delicate subjects, from government transparency (or lack thereof) to flaws in the Soviet-style sports system to sponsors' pressures on athletes—and most importantly to China's obsession with a home-team Olympic "Gold Rush." Officials and citizens alike had made little attempt to conceal their goal of winning the most gold medals at these Games, supplanting the American sports superpower as No. 1, at least in golds. Liu's anticipated gold had been seen as special; it symbolized the rare example of an Asian's ability to dominate a track and field event.

But instead of grabbing gold, Liu hobbled off the track. Now the current period of soul-searching "is a good opportunity to debate this 'Gold Rush'," says Dong Jun, an announcer from the Beijing Games organizing committee. He believes it's time to re-examine the centralized and elitist "going for gold" approach. At the other end of the spectrum is what Chinese call the "sports for all" attitude that would treat athletes less like robots and more like, well, people who play sports because it's fun.

READ THE FULL COLUMN HERE

 

More

 

Clearly, Obama's people know a good thing when they see it.

Asked yesterday in an interview with the Politico how many houses he owns with his wife Cindy, a beer heiress, John McCain was, well, not quite sure. "I think - I'll have my staff get to you," he said. "It's condominiums where - I'll have them get to you." The the quote hit the web around 8:00 this morning--and presumably some low-level staffer on the 11th floor of 233 N. Michigan Ave. in Chicago squealed, smiled and sprinted straight for David Axelrod's office.

The onslaught began immediately. First, spokesman Bill Burton emailed reporters to say that "this story about John McCain losing track of how many houses he owns is a telling moment that helps to explain why he still thinks 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' and why he offers just more of the same economic policies that we've gotten from President Bush for the last eight years." Just, you know, FYI.

Next, veep hopeful Tim Kaine pounced, claiming on CNN that McCain "couldn't count high enough apparently to even know how many houses he owns." By 11:00 a.m., Team Obama had already cut and released an ad on national cable (above) "contrast[ing] Americans' struggle to pay their mortgages with McCain's optimistic talk on the economy and his personal wealth." "It's seven," says the announcer, answering Politico's question as an image of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. appears on screen. "Seven houses. And here's one house America can't afford to let John McCain move into." By 1:30, Chicago had deployed "high-profile surrogates in 16 states across the country"--including "governors, members of Congress and state legislators"--to "hold conference calls and press conferences" meant to "highlight McCain's uncertainty," even going so far as to launch a phone survey in Florida designed to "find Floridians who, like McCain, have lost track of the number of homes they own." Meanwhile, Obama himself weighed in from Virginia. "If you don't know how many houses you have, then it's not surprising that you might think the economy is fundamentally strong," he said. "But if you're like me and you've got one house - or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they don't lose their home - you might have a different perspective." 

To say that Team Obama is "salivating" over McCain's misstep would be an understatement--slobbering is more like it. It's easy to see why. As Ben Smith notes, Obama's rapid-fire "seven homes" campaign represents "a sharp new line of attack--that McCain is out-of-touch with the economy in part because he's so rich." On a textual--as opposed to subtextual level--this is absolutely correct. With our current economic downturn so directly related to the housing crisis, any gaffe that has the potential to convince vast majority of Americans--who generally know how many houses they own--that McCain is too wealthy to understand what's going on is a gift from the political gods. Not only is it ideal fodder for Leno and Letterman, but, as Marc Ambinder notes, "it fits perfectly into Obama's 'out-of-touch Washingtonian' versus 'new ideas for today's world' frame." And what's more, it nicely complements McCain's out-of-context crack that only people who make over $5 million are rich, which we predicted last week would hang around his neck like "some sort of gilded albatross" for the remainder of the race--and which Obama was sure to mention today in Virginia. When the Illinois senator told skittish Dems Monday that he was "ready to hit back," he wasn't kidding. It's pretty much all he's been doing since returning from Hawaii.

That said, I'd argue that the most important aspect of "seven houses" episode--the reason it matters more than the $5 million mess--is subtextual. The key is that phrase "out-of-touch." While Obama and Co. are openly attributing McCain's "out-of-touchness" to his wealth, it's not hard to imagine the Republican nominee's inability to keep track of his real estate holdings will subconsciously strike some voters as having to do with another, more penetrating personal attribute: his age. After all, the implicit contrast here is not between the candidate's bank accounts; Obama himself raked in more than $4 million last year. It's between their grasp of seemingly obvious realities. When nearly four in ten voters say they're concerned that you're too old to be president, being seen as "out of touch" has the potential to do even more damage than it did to John Kerry in 2004. At 60, the windsurfing wonder with an heiress wife and and handful of homes was merely "rich." I suspect that voters will never think of McCain--a former POW who lived through years of excruciating torture--primarily as a man of privilege. But they already think he's old.

The truth is, I can kind of understand McCain's confusion. A scion of Arizona's wealthy Hensley family, his wife Cindy is reportedly worth $100 million. It was she who purchased all of the properties in question--including two multimillion dollar condos in the exclusive beach enclave of Coronado, Calif.--and beyond the ranch in Sedona, Ariz., the family condo in Phoenix and an apartment in the D.C. suburbs, McCain probably hasn't spent much (if any) time at any of them. (Cindy began visiting Coronado while recovering from her 2004 stroke, for example; McCain, who's apparently "not a beach person," was living in Washington.) Still, that explanation will do little to quiet his critics or erase the (accurate) impression of his family's wealth.

Over at the Atlantic, Ambinder wondered whether McCain's slip was "worse than a scanner moment." *He was referring, of course, to the famous reports from Feb. 5, 1992 that President George H.W. Bush, then running for reelection, had seemingly marveled over an ordinary supermarket checkout scanner at the National Grocers Convention in Orlando, Fla. "Amazed by some of the technology," he'd said. The scene caught on with reporters, who used it to symbolize Bush's lack of familiarity with the details of ordinary American life--his "out-of-touchness," so to speak. Nevermind that the device that had impressed the prez wasn't a regular scanner but rather a prototype that could "weigh groceries and read mangled and torn bar codes." ("Bush acts curious and polite, but hardly amazed," wrote NEWSWEEK after reviewing a video of the incident.) By then, it was too late. Slipping toward recession, the country skipped the swell who didn't know his way around a supermarket in favor of a blue-collar upstart who could "feel their pain."*

And here we are, still searching for "scanner moments." 

*Adapted from an earlier Stumper post. 
 

More

Earlier today, the Port Washington, NY-based NPD Group, which tracks sales data for the videogame industry and other sectors, issued a press release about a new service that it would be offering along with its counterparts in the U.K. and Japan. Titled the "Top Global Markets Report," the three companies state that it will be "the first report to integrate point-of-sale (POS) data for video game software sales in the world’s largest games markets," specifically the United States (NPD), the U.K. (Chart-Track) and Japan (Enterbrain). To clarify some details in the announcement, we dashed off some questions to NPD toys and videogames analyst Anita Frazier and corporate marketing director David Riley. Here's what they wrote back:

How did this collaboration among The NPD Group, Gfk Chart-Track Ltd and Enterbrain come about? Who approached who first?

David Riley: The foundation for this was built back in 2004 when we met with Enterbrain at E3. NPD's relationship with Enterbrain grew from there. We've had long-standing relationships and various business partnerships with both GfK and Chart-Track, so it only made sense to form this alliance.

Will the Top Global Markets Report be issued in North America simultaneously with the monthly NPD videogame reports ? If not, how soon afterwards can we expect the global report?

Anita Frazier: This is a top global markets report, not a comprehensive global tracker. The report will be issued to subscribing clients. The Global Markets database won't be available simultaneously with the standard U.S. database. It will be released a few days after but we don't have a set schedule at this time.

Which parts of the report will be made available to media and the public? Can we expect to receive both hardware and software data?

To read the rest of our Q&A in its entirety, click on the link below.

More

By Zach Kussin

First considered a home to Roman fishermen in the 2nd century BC, Jávea has since evolved from a small port town to one of Europe’s most popular Mediterranean destinations. Today, visitors can learn about Jávea’s vivid history while enjoying a variety of fun summer activities, especially at the many beaches that dot Spain's Costa Blanca—known to be one of the country's most beautiful coastlines. Located an hour’s drive from downtown Valencia, Jávea gives tourists the opportunity to simultaneously experience traditional Spanish life and southern Europe’s most active outdoor culture.

EXPLORE El Pueblo, Jávea’s old quarter. Previously enclosed by a formidable stonewall to protect Jávea’s inhabitants from troops of marauding pirates, El Pueblo is now open to visitors from all lands…as long as they don’t thieve Jávea’s treasured collection of gold jewelry and precious gems from past centuries on display at the Soler Blasco historical museum. All of El Pueblo’s narrow and winding streets lead you to the Church of Sant Bartolomé. Dating back to the 14th century, this impressive structure made of tosca stone hewn from Jávea’s rocky shores forms the geographic, spiritual and cultural center of Jávea. Besides holding Sunday mass, communions, conformations and festivals honoring the saints, a variety of outdoor concerts, traditional Valencian danzas and plays take place in the church’s plaza for all of Jávea’s residents to enjoy.

CLIMB the Montgó Massif. Standing at 753 meters high, a hike up Montgó’s steep façade gives breathtaking views of Jávea’s entire shoreline, its neighboring towns, Denia and Jesús Pobre, and even the Balearic island of Ibiza on clear days. A variety of guided tours explaining Montgó’s diverse species of flora or exploring its many caverns are also available.

More

The last couple days I just feel it slipping. My interest in photos is fading, I’m finding it harder to get out of bed in the morning, and I just seem to be missing things or making mistakes. And when I’m not making mistakes my cameras are either backfocusing or not working all together. It’s like there is a little gremlin in my camera back that is sabotaging my Games. For example, today was the first time I was granted access to placing an underwater camera in the pool (unfortunately for me it was for women’s synchro, not Phelps) and I flooded a camera in one of my housings when I first jumped in the water. In 10 years, and hundreds of times in the water, I have only ruined one camera. But this time I just didn’t check everything twice before hopping in, and next thing I know the housing is filled like an aquarium. To top it all off, the camera that was ruined was not mine. I luckily packed two housings, so after dropping some f-bombs on the pool deck, I placed the back-up system in the water.

I’m not sure if it’s that I’m just worn down from shooting, editing, and blogging everyday, or if I’m just missing home, but I just feel like I can’t get it going. I feel that I’ve made a strong set of photos to this point and would love to finish it off strong, but the last couple of days I’ve been down and out. It’s been a great assignment for NEWSWEEK, with much of the creative control and scheduling of this assignment left in our hands. Kudos to Simon Barnett and the photo staff at NEWSWEEK for giving us this opportunity and placing us in this position. Nevertheless, I feel a bit depressed and in a funk, and one of my close friends commented, “don’t go to that dark place” when he saw me yesterday. The truth is the Olympics is a very long and stressful few weeks for any photographer, especially if you are leaving family back at home. I feel like every Games I do shaves a couple years off the back-end of my life. But for me it is the pinnacle of sports photography, where the finest sports photographers in the world congregate to shoot the top athletes in an arena that transcends sports. I just want to get this thing wrapped up on a good note and get back to the comforts of home and family.

More

Despite how often Mia Hamm was reminded that she was the singular face of American woman‘s soccer, the “I” word never escaped her lips. Until the day she retired after the Athens Olympics, Hamm as well as her teammates always talked about “we.” And they insisted that the bonds of sisterhood, as the women struggled together to put their game on the American map, were as essential to their success—two World Cup triumphs and two Olympic gold medals—as their considerable playing skills.

That notion was supposed to be at the core of the next generation of U.S. women's team players. But the 2007 World Cup in China revealed that it had never completely taken hold. The implosion came after starting goalkeeper Hope Solo, who had backstopped the team without a loss to the semi-finals, was benched against Brazil in favor of the veteran, Briana Scurry. Scurry was hardly the only problem that day when a quicker, more talented Brazilian team kicked the U.S. women 4-0. But afterward, Solo mouthed off, indicating not only her displeasure at being sidelined, but insisting that she would have fared better than Scurry, a hero of the ’99 World Cup triumph.

Trashing a teammate and a coach was something a man would do and the team reacted with predictable fury. No longer was Solo just benched, she was booted off the team and on her way home before the U.S. team, with Scurry in goal, won the bronze medal game. The loss and the subsequent mess cost coach Greg Ryan his job. His replacement, Pia Sundhage, a Swede and the first non-American to coach the U.S. women’s national team, faced a lot of resistance when she invited Solo back. But she insisted that Solo was critical to the team's Olympic hopes. “Do you want to win?” she asked the players.

And last night with Solo in the nets, the United States—in the kind of delicious irony that sport so often serves up—faced heavily favored Brazil again, this time for the Olympic gold medal. Could the woman who had so recklessly shed one legacy be the mainstay in rescuing another—winning?

For 90 minutes, the 27-year-old Solo did everything possible to keep the United States in the gold-medal chase. She gobbled up balls without a stumble or a fumble, executed perfectly timed dashes to beat the speedy Brazilian forwards to the ball and punched out several dangerous corner kicks that she couldn’t snare. And in the 72^nd minute when the brilliant Marta dribbled through two U.S. defenders and fired inside post, Solo knocked away what looked to be a sure goal with her right forearm as she was falling to her left. The Brazilian coach would say later he was already getting to his feet to celebrate.

In the 89^th minute, U.S. forward Amy Rodriguez had the fairytale ending on her foot. After a game in which Brazil had frequently looked dangerous—it had 14 corner kicks to the U.S.’s  3 and possessed the ball 58 percent of the game—and the U.S. hadn’t, Rodriguez slipped through the Brazilian defense and went in alone on the goalkeeper. But rather than try to go around the keeper, who had ventured out, she tried to loft the ball softly over her and didn’t get it above her fingertips.

Sometimes you just have to work overtime for redemption. While Solo remained unflappable, keeping the potent Brazilian attack at bay, the ball finally took a big bounce America’s way in the sixth minute of the 30-minute overtime session, This time when Rodriguez got the ball at the top of the box, she knew exactly what to do with it. She slid it over to midfielder Carli Lloyd, the team’s best outside gun and the one player who had been outspoken in defense of Solo. Lloyd fired a left-footer, diagonally from about 19 yards out, and the ball just slid past the outstretched left hand of the sprawling Brazilian keeper.

The Brazilians never stopped threatening and fired away on Solo throughout the second half of overtime. But their shots were always just wide or just over the net. On one free kick from 30 yards out, Solo appeared to be screened because she never moved on the ball, but it skittered wide right. In the final minute, Brazil had two more golden opportunities; Solo punched one out of danger and sprawled to deflect the second wide. When the final whistle blew and the U.S. had held on for a 1-0 victory, Solo raised her arms in triumph and charged upfield and into the middle of her jubilant teammates.

But soon she was alone at the end of the field, talking on a cellphone to her brother back home in Washington. Later when she was asked if she felt fully part of the team now, she suggested that maybe she had been a pioneer—like Hamm, though she never suggested that—in changing roles in women’s sports. “We don’t have to be best friends,” she said of her and her teammates. But she clearly felt some burden had been lifted. “I can be myself now without looking over my shoulder,” she said. “I’m free to be myself now.” Asked if she felt vindicated, she simply said, “I feel amazing.”

Nobody will ever know if Solo would have made a difference against Brazil in the World Cup a year ago. And maybe her decidedly unsisterly comments were bad form. But in old-fashioned parlance, if she talked the talk back then, tonight she certainly walked the walk. Solo was all the difference. And thanks above all to her heroic efforts, the United States women’s soccer team has added another gold medal—probably the most surprising in its storied history--to its vast treasure trove.

More

Photographers don't generally relish shooting podium pictures because they so rarely yield a good image. Typically, they reluctantly shoot the ceremony so they can say they "have it" should their bosses back at the office ask for it later. But on occasion, a picture of real quality presents itself, as it does here. In my selection for Picture of the Day, by Vincent Laforet, you see a wonderful version of the podium picture, showing the American beach volleyball duo of Misty May-Treanor (right) and Kerri Walsh as they enjoy their moment of gold-medal glory. Adding to the dramatic quality of the picture is the wonderfully dense color palate, which is the result of the heavily overcast cloud conditions of the day. It's perhaps not the most technically challenging picture Vince has made, but it is a moving and memorable photograph of athletic accomplishment nonetheless.—Simon Barnett, Director of Photography, NEWSWEEK

More

(Elise Amendola / AP Photo)

WWHD?

While some Democrats panic (prematurely, experts say) over a series of polls showing the average gap between Barack Obama and John McCain shrinking from eight points on June 23 to 1.4 points today, another slice of the party--namely, the disgruntled-Clintonista contingent--is reacting with four cruel words: "I told you so." And thanks to the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, they have some ammunition. Released yesterday afternoon, the survey gives Obama 45 percent to 42 percent lead over McCain--down from his six-point advantage last month--while putting Clinton ahead of the Republican nominee 49-43. "The Democrats really needed Hillary to win, and not as VP," writes Stumper reader MCGILL. "McCain has it." Fellow commenter "jpokergman" goes one step further, predicting that Denver will "morph into a Hillary-buyer-remorse-lovefest," with "'we could have had Hillary'... rocketing through the Democratic convention" and the press "turn[ing] on Obama like a starving pit-bull."

Sadly--because anything would be better than the newsless infomercials conventions have become--this isn't going to happen. But all the agita does raise an interesting question: If Hillary Clinton had captured the Democratic nomination back in June--perhaps with revotes in Florida and Michigan--would she performing better against McCain than Obama is now? Of course, this sort of counterfactual is impossible to, you know, prove. But given that Clinton was easily the closest runner-up in modern nominating history--and given that doubts about whether or not she would've been a stronger nominee are still dividing Democrats--it's worth taking a brief breather from this week's frenzied veepstakes bonanza to scan the available evidence and ponder the "what ifs."

From a messaging standpoint, there's certainly an argument to be made that Clinton would be outperforming Obama. As the New York Times reported this morning, "voters [are] focused overwhelmingly on economic issues"--40 percent name "the economy" as their most pressing concern--"but [are] convinced that the candidates are not paying enough attention to their priorities." The Washington Times, meanwhile, notes that McCain is now leading "when voters [are] asked which candidate could better manage the economy," "turning a four-point deficit in July['s Reuters/Zobgy poll] into a 49 percent to 40 percent lead." This is clear proof that despite "delivering a more populist message that further highlights his [economic] differences with Senator John McCain" since returning last week from Hawaii, Obama has yet to make an emotional connection with swing voters on what should be the Democratic Party's winning issue.

Judging by the final months of the Democratic nominating contest--when Clinton won the majority of votes and primaries by hammering home precisely the "populist message" Obama is now adopting--the former first lady would not be having that problem right now. It's not that Obama isn't proposing specific economic policies. He is. But the Obama "phenomenon" provides the press with so many distractions--his race, his "celebrity," the latest "Obama-themed merchandise"--that his daily message is often drowned out. With the relatively "familiar" Clinton, on the other hand, reporters probably would've been forced to cover her latest "solution" on, say, "equal pay for women"--because she'd give them little else to chatter about. (Remember who coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid.") Like her husband Bill--who in 1992 skipped the posh Martha's Vineyard for "rustic" Jackson Hole, Wyo., where he was photographed riding a horse--Clinton would've vacationed in a poll-tested "all-American" spot like Scranton, Penn. instead of Obama's "highfalutin" Hawaii. Coupled with her relative strength in the traditional swing states of Ohio and Florida--as of early May, she was leading McCain there by 6-8 percent, while Obama, who's still behind in both places, trailed by nearly as much--it's easy to see why some supporters think she'd be in a better position to win come November.

That said, there are plenty of reasons to suspect that a Clinton-McCain match-up would've been just as close as the current contest. For starters, Clinton's "lead" over McCain in the latest NBC/WSJ poll is her largest ever. From January through April, she never edged out McCain--who actually beat her 47-43 in January and 46-44 in March--by more than two points. Obama, meanwhile, posted consistent leads over the Republican nominee and therefore appeared to be the stronger national candidate. So what accounts for Clinton's gains? Simply put, disgruntled Clintonistas. As MSNBC's First Read team reported this morning, "the biggest reason why this race remains close in this Dem-leaning political environment is because of Obama’s inability to close the deal with some of Clinton’s supporters." According to the NBC/WSJ poll, 52 percent of them say they'll vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee, while 21 percent are backing McCain and an additional 27 percent are either undecided or want to vote for someone else. These dissenters wouldn't exist, of course, if Clinton had won the nomination. But it's worth remembering that she'd have a whole nother group of dissatisfied Dems to contend with--namely black and young voters, who supported Obama by overwhelming margins in the primaries and would've been at least as angry as Clinton's former backers are now if HRC and Co. had "stolen" the nomination by "bending the rules" at the 11th hour. If the tables were turned and Clinton were now running against McCain, these voters--who represent a full 30 percent of the NBC/WSJ sample group--would undoubtedly depress Clinton's numbers as much as (or more than) disgruntled Clintonites are now depressing Obama's.

And that's not all. While Clinton was outpolling Obama in Ohio and Florida last May, she was also losing to McCain across a broad swath of crucial swing states where Obama was (and is) either winning or tied: Wisconsin (by four percent); Virginia (by nine percent); Colorado (by approximately eight percent); New Hampshire (by one percent); Michigan (by three percent); and Iowa (by three percent). Given that Obama outraised Clinton by $60 million during the primaries and is still only barely keeping pace with McCain and the RNC's combined intake--not to mention the fact that he consistently out-organized her and is now investing "more massively than any campaign in the history of American politics on the ground game"--it's impossible to conclude, all things considered, that Clinton would be outperforming Obama in an Electoral College match-up with McCain. Especially when you factor in her near-50-percent disapproval ratings and account for all the animus she inspires on the right--which the GOP would deftly use to fuel its GOTV and fundraising efforts and rally its otherwise dispirited base. And there's no reason to believe that Clinton's conflicted, rudderless, ineffectual campaign--the real reason she lost--would suddenly, magically whip itself into working order in time for the fall.

Still, it's understandable that some Dems are speculating about what might have been. In fact, the buzz has grown so loud in recent days (hours?) that it seems to have spilled over into--you guessed it--the veepstakes feeding frenzy. According to master CW-monger Mark Halperin, "EVERYONE in the political class is [now] talking about the possibility of Obama shocking the world and picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate." For what it's worth, the "dream team" idea makes more sense today than it ever has. Obama solidifies his support among former Clintonistas, excites the Democratic base and boosts his chances in Ohio and Florida. Clinton doesn't do what the naysayers feared she would do--that is, unite the Republican Party (it's already pretty united, at least against Obama) or fill McCain's coffers (he's on the verge of forsaking private funds)--but she does provoke, in Nate Silver's words, "overzealous attempts to whip the Republican base into a frenzy" that will inevitably be "counteracted with outrage from significant numbers of older and working-class women." It could work. Unfortunately, as Halperin notes, there's only one thing that "speculation of a Clinton veep choice is based on" at this point:

"Nothing."
 

More

 

I don't smoke but it just sounds cooler than "coffee and Powerbars."

So coffee has stopped working sometime in the last couple of days. I can’t seem to get a buzz off a large coffee with a double red eye. Or whatever it’s supposed to be called. All I know is this would normally get me running up the walls, but now, not so much…the net effect is that when I shot a half a game of handball on my way over to the track I was a step behind the players and didn’t make a single snap. Fortunately when I got to the more familiar ground of the track things improved.

 




That said, I’ve changed my music selection at night to a bit of opera, there’s something apropos about a little tragedy at this point in the Games.


More

What a day--I'm amazed that not only I, but also my cameras and lenses survived. At 6 a.m., after only two hours of sleep, I got a call from Simon Barnett to strategize on the remaining four days of the Olympics. Little did Simon know he was cutting into 1/3 of my bedtime for the night. But it was time to go anyway--even though I would have bet a healthy sum of money that there was absolutely no way that the gold medal match of women's beach volleyball was going to be played in the conditions I was seeing out of my hotel window. The rain was torrential.

There's only one thing that a photographer dreads more than going hours early to a game/event that s/he knows will most definitely be rained out--and that's getting up ridiculously early to do just that! You get there 2-4 hours early and sit and wait forever--never quite getting a chance to make up for that lost sleep. And there's just nothing more miserable than having to go out to make a "rain feature." You get wet, cold and if you have them--your glasses completely fog up. Every time you pull out a lens cloth to dry something--you're never really sure if you're going to help things or end up making things much worse by smudging goo all over your lenses.

This morning, every bone in my body told me there was absolutely no way they would play beach volleyball in these horrid conditions--let alone a gold medal match. Nonetheless, I called the venue manager for the site--and he insisted that the games would go on. The communication over the phone was far from perfect as usual--but it wasn't the fear of things lost being lost in translation that caused me to second-guess him and to call a second time--I just didn't want to believe that they could possibly play in these conditions! "We play in much bigger bigger storm few days ago" he told me--and so I headed onto the early bus--RELUCTANTLY. You just don't want to be "that guy" that missed the gold medal win because he chose to hit the snooze button and adhere to common sense.

The image above was made with a fisheye lens. It's a shot I thought of making early in the morning before I left the hotel because I knew how unusual it seemed to me to have such an important contest fought in such adverse conditions. Hey--its' BEACH volleyball!!!   I set the lens to f22 and used the hyperfocal to get the drops in focus as much as possible... one Italian photographer just didn't understand that I was purposely allowing the waterdrops to fall on my lens... he kept screaming at me to cover the front element of my lens with my towel... that was actually the last thing I wanted to do.

As I arrived at the venue the rain was actually dying down. Suddenly I felt so relieved not to have followed my instincts to bag this assignment and go back to sleep. But as the match was about to start, the sky turned a much darker shade of gray and within minutes we were all absolutely completely and utterly soaked. Two photographers were better prepared than I was:  Robert Beck of Sports Illustrated and Erich Schlegel of the Dallas Morning News were smart enough to show up in their swimming trunks--now that's being prepared!

One of the reasons that photographers hate shooting in the rain is the rain covers we use. I own three brands, and none of them work 100%. In fact, they're a total nightmare.  They're designed to keep your camera and lens dry, but they make it impossible to quickly change lenses (doing so  exponentially increases your change of shorting a contact point or getting the rear lens element of your lens wet anyway) and shooting can be close to impossible at times. If you hold you camera upright for even a second, you now have rain drops on the front of your lens, decreasing image quality to a good degree. Hold it downward and you have raindrops--or in this case, sand--in your rear eye-cup. On more than one occasion I couldn't even reach the zoom ring on my lenses, as I was fighting the elastics on the rain covers for control. It's frankly a total disaster to shoot with these things and toward the final point I just ripped everything off. Problem was: most of the covers had the camera straps put through them, so I couldn't get them off and out of the way, and then the covers got in the way of the lenses etc. Total, total disaster...I'm very lucky that I did not miss more shots than I did today...

Here is the initial reaction of the U.S.A. duo:

The photo above was nice--but didn't have enough faces. Unfortunately, the next frame was a bit more risqué, if you will. It's still one of "The Moments." Tough call...  

More

A round-up of this morning's must-read stories.

IT'S HIS PARTY
(Dana Goldstein and Ezra Klein, American Prospect)
The Obama campaign has announced plans for training camps that will turn out thousands of new organizers dedicated to electing Democrats, and has signaled that it will spend millions in blood-red states where Democrats haven't seriously invested in building party infrastructure for decades. The campaign has constructed a fundraising machine based around small-donors that promises to end the age-old competition for dollars between different wings of the Democratic establishment, enabling the creation of a unified electoral strategy. It has argued that "real change" requires the sort of legislative successes that only a strong congressional party can produce. In short, the candidate running on his exhaustion with traditional party politics has directed his campaign to build a new kind of Democratic Party--one that may put to shame anything that came before it.

MCCAIN CLOSES GAP ON OBAMA IN POLL AS CONVENTION LOOMS
(Laura Meckler, Wall Street Journal)
Sen. John McCain has all but closed the gap with Sen. Barack Obama, underscoring how international crises -- and some well-placed negative ads -- have boosted the prospects of the Republican presidential candidate. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll also points to a big challenge for Sen. Obama as his party gathers in Denver next week for its convention: rallying Sen. Hillary Clinton's supporters to his cause. Only half of those who voted for Sen. Clinton in the primaries say they are now supporting Sen. Obama. One in five is supporting Sen. McCain... Overall, the poll finds the race a statistical dead heat, with 45% favoring Sen. Obama and 42% Sen. McCain. That three-point Obama advantage is down from six points a month ago, a trend found in other national polls as well. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, meaning the Obama lead could range from zero to six points. The poll has some cautionary notes for Sen. McCain as well. It shows that his supporters are much less enthusiastic than Sen. Obama's, and finds widespread concern among voters about his age.

MORE:
McCain Erases Obama's Edge with Swing Voters (David R. Sands, Washington Times)
Independent voters, who clearly preferred the Democrat in previous surveys, now favor Mr. McCain by a 45 percent to 35 percent margin, according to the bipartisan George Washington University/Battleground 2008 poll published Wednesday. The Republican candidate is in a statistical tie with Mr. Obama on what was supposed to be a Democratic strong suit: dealing with the economy.

BY GEORGE, IT'S BARACK
(Steven Stark, Boston Phoenix) 
Right now, everyone is focused on Barack Obama's vice-presidential choice. But historically, convention acceptance speeches matter even more. When Obama gives his acceptance speech next Thursday night, it will offer him his best chance to recast his candidacy before November. Next to the debates, these speeches make for the campaign's most decisive moments. They are the time when the voters first judge a candidate as a potential president. And, throughout the years, they have been the time when various nominees -- from FDR to Ronald Reagan, and beyond -- have set out the themes that have defined their candidacies, and even their presidencies. In his speech, Obama really has one task: he has to make himself part of the great American story, so as to convince the average voter that he's "one of us."

CONVENTIONS NEED A BELIEVABLE SCRIPT
(Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal)
What must Barack Obama and John McCain achieve at their conventions? Conventions are the best, most controlled opportunities left for the candidates. Only the debates come close in impact, but they are unpredictable and not susceptible to the choreography available at the conventions. Mr. McCain's handlers must achieve three things. First is a greater public awareness of the character that makes him worthy of the Oval Office... Mr. McCain's second goal is to persuade Americans he can tackle domestic challenges... Third, Mr. McCain must show voters he remains a maverick who will, as president, work across party lines as he has as senator... Mr. Obama, on the other hand, needs to reassure Americans he is up to the job. Voters recognize he represents change, yet they are unsettled. Does he have the experience to be president?

OBAMA SHIFTS MESSAGE TO EVERYDAY CONCERNS
(Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times)
Senator Barack Obama has sharpened his stump speech, delivering a more populist message that further highlights his differences with Senator John McCain, particularly on the economy. Since he returned from vacation in Hawaii last week, Mr. Obama has intensified his focus on the economic pressures facing everyday Americans and portrayed Mr. McCain as an active participant in the policies of the last eight years, saying they have left more people behind. Instead of focusing on the promise of sweeping change that propelled him to the nomination, Mr. Obama this week has been echoing Bill Clinton’s 1992 promise to “fight for you every single day.” The tightened message is part of a continuing effort since the primaries to bring his oratory down to a more human scale. It also coincides with Mr. Obama’s slip in public opinion polls, with some, including the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, putting him and Mr. McCain neck and neck.

THE SILVER BULLET
(Lois Romano, Washington Post)
Last month, McCain asked Schmidt to take over the daily operations of an unfocused campaign that was languishing in Barack Obama's shadow... Schmidt wasted no time shaking up the campaign like a California earthquake. He centralized power at headquarters between himself and campaign manager Rick Davis, who has been overseeing the convention, fundraising and the vice-presidential selection. He made sure everyone understood their jobs and was communicating with each other. He insisted that aides stick to a closely controlled message, and he pushed for a more aggressive stance against Barack Obama. Within weeks, McCain was ridiculing Obama's rock-star image in a provocative ad comparing him to Britney Spears, and seizing every opportunity to hammer him -- for canceling a visit to the troops, accusing him of suggesting McCain was a racist, painting him as an elitist -- all designed to make voters question whether he is ready to be president. At the same time, McCain himself has stuck to Schmidt's playbook with uncharacteristic discipline, even abandoning his daily freewheeling exchange with reporters. Some loyalists complain that this new, more negative strategy is demeaning to McCain, and killing his trademark spontaneity and candor. But there is no question that it is working.

CONTINUED AFTER THE JUMP...
 

More

It’s hard to explain to friends back home, deeply envious of my privilege to go to any Olympic event I choose, why sometimes I prefer to watch the events in my office on the closed-circuit Olympic broadcast rather than watch them from prime press seats in the stands. The answer in a word: rain!

When my pal Filip woke me early this morning to tell me not to worry, that he had already confirmed that the beach volleyball final would be played regardless, I sensed that I wasn’t hearing entirely good news. I pulled back the shades in my room, glanced out the window and made the kind of spur-of-the-moment decision the truly great journalist must always be prepared for. Misty and Kerri had no choice but to play in a downpour—“that’s another reason we wear bathing suits,” Misty May-Treanor told reporters—but I could opt to stay dry back at the Main Press Center.

Apart from the comfort of dry clothes, there are certain professional advantages to staying away as well. Even with a bus system that, in my long Olympic tenure, deserves the gold medal for both efficiency and courtesy, the rigors of traveling to and fro pretty much limit you two events a day. But sit in front of the tube, with its 39 Olympic channels and a grandmaster like Al on the clicker, and you can see virtually every play of every game of every sport. At one point, Al was going back and forth so fast that I thought our heavyweight wrestler had just spiked a winner on the beach through the Chinese pair.

The biggest bonus today was that a time when I would have been riding the bus back from the “beach”, I got to see the a real volleyball game instead. Now I am not so old that the appeal of beach volleyball is lost on me. With all due respect to our women's gold-medal duo, May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh, who are not only sensational athletes but among my all-time, favorite Olympians, beach volleyball would not rate NBC prime-time live if not for the dimensions of the uniform and the hardbodies that are uncovered by them. (That is equally true for the men’s game.) And while the downpour might render me a sodden mess, it certainly had the players’ bodies glistening—sweat to the nth degree. (I am told that the Chinese were at first appalled by such immodesty among its athletes, but, with two duos in the women’s final four, they have obvious adjusted to our dubious Western ways.)

I know it is heresy to say this, but absent the titillation (and the rock and roll that punctuates the game), the beach version is simply not as interesting a game as traditional indoor volleyball. The six-on-a-side game has longer, more spectacular rallies and more variety in both play and strategy. Frankly, I had kind of forgotten how compelling the old-fashioned volleyball can be. I suspect that’s because we journalists are parochial and U.S. teams haven’t been serious medal contenders since both the men and women took bronze in Barcelona back in 1992.

But in Beijing we have witnessed an American revival. The men’s team is undefeated and will play Russia in the semis tomorrow. And today the American women played almost the perfect game to reach the finals, sweeping a Cuban team that had shut them out three sets to none just 10 days ago. These women sweat too, but it is not a sideshow; the rivulets simply disappear into their uniforms rather than their bellybuttons. They also leap, dive and sprawl with precious little regard for their bodies, the floor being a bit less forgiving than the sand.

Chacun a son gout, but I’m going against the flow and casting my lot with our indoor volleyballers. Frankly, it was such a pleasure watching the American women’s combination of power and precision, grit and finesse that it was like a day at the beach.

More

We all knew China's population was graying rapidly, but Wednesday authorities drove home the point by sentencing two elderly women to the gulag. Wu Dianyuan and Wang Xiuying are both citizens in their late 70's who walk using canes; Wang is partially blind.  They'd applied for permission to protest in one of the three government-designated "protest corners" in  Beijing public parks. Their grievance is a common one: that they received inadequate compensation for their homes which were demolished in a recent pre-Games wave of urban redevelopment. Permission to protest was not granted; none of at least 77 applicants have received permission, in fact. Then the two elderly ladies each received a suspended sentence of one year of "re-education through labor", an extra-judicial punishment that doesn't require the decision of a court judge.

Other Chinese activists have been held incommunicado since the onset of the Games. Dissenters and the lawyers who represent them have been detained, even beaten. The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China reports that, in less than a month, members have encountered reporting interference by authorities on an average of more than two confirmed cases per day. Meanwhile foreign critics of Beijing's policies in Tibet have been playing a cat-and-mouse game with Beijing police, launching guerrilla protests of various sorts on an almost daily basis—only to be swiftly arrested and deported. (A recent protest near the Bird's Nest stadium, involving activists holding LED lights that spelled out "Free Tibet", lasted just 20 seconds, according to Students for a Free Tibet; the exile group said that on Tuesday half a dozen "citizen journalists, videobloggers, and activists" were detained, including Brian Conley who created the well-known videoblog "Alive in Baghdad".)

For more background on this behind-the-scenes tussle, Newsweek.com interviewed Minky Worden, media director for Human Rights Watch China. Worden recently edited the book "China's Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges".  She talks about the recent failures and hopeful future for human rights reforms and extended press freedoms in China. (The contributor who talked with Worden requested anonymity for fear of retaliation). Excerpts:

In the short term, what do you think the impact of the Olympics has been on human rights?
     This year a chill descended and it started almost exactly with the one-year countdown on August 8, 2007. This was entirely predictable, but it was also against the backdrop of a pretty rough year  -- with the 17th Party Congress in October, the freak snowstorms earlier this year, the Tibet protests, and the Sichuan earthquake.
     It's important to remember that 2008 is not just an Olympic year. It's also the 30th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping's opening and reform policy. In the past ten years, there have been important reforms for the rule of law and human rights. And the Internet means people have a lot more access to information than they had before, even though it's not total access.
     This year, there's been a marked deterioration [in the human rights situation]. But this is a very Darwinistic Communist party: there are elements within that recognize the need to change, not the least to hold on to their own power. We're hopeful that after the Olympics the Chinese government  will move on vital legal reforms, including [changes to] the criminal procedure law, to reeducation through labor, and to due process checks on death sentences that could radically reduce the numbers of executions.

More

1. EGO...trip: Public Enemy's longtime Media Assassin gives us props
2. TRU...st the Kangol, but verify: Valve audits EA, finds it squeaky clean
3. THE...Does this review of a review vindicate the Colossus of London?
4. REW...Why simpler is better when it comes to the acclaimed Braid
5. WoW...The Blizzard half of ActiBlizzion gets the Business Week treatment
6. RND...Who's zooming who, or, writing about writing about call girls

More

If you don't live in one of this year's dozen or so swing states (like most of the rest of the electorate), chances are you've encountered Barack Obama and John McCain mainly through the television screen--or, more specifically, through their combined $11 million investment in ads airing nationally during NBC's coverage of the Beijing Olympics. In which case, all you're seeing of Obama is his dream of "putt[ing] the middle class ahead of corporate interests" and his desire to "create five million jobs [by] developing home-grown energy technologies." And all you're seeing of McCain is... well, not much. The majority of McCain's record-setting $6 million ad buy went into airing "Painful," an ad mocking Obama's "life in the spotlight" while claiming that "the real Obama" is "not ready to lead." Given that Team McCain has spent much of the summer seeking free media exposure with limited-release spots comparing Obama to Paris Hilton--and releasing attack ads riddled with inaccuracies-- you'd think that only the Arizona senator has indulged in negative messaging, leaving his opponent from Illinois to travel the high road all by his lonesome.

You'd be wrong. As the New York Times reported this morning, Obama "has started a sustained and hard-hitting advertising campaign against Senator John McCain in states that will be vital this fall, painting Mr. McCain in a series of commercials as disconnected from the economic struggles of the middle class." So why haven't you heard anything about them? Because unlike a traditional campaign, Team Obama has "begun the drive with little fanfare, often eschewing the modern campaign technique of unveiling new spots for the news media before they run in an effort to win added (free) attention." The point, of course, is to preserve the perception that Obama is a "new kind of politician" on national level while still scoring "old politics"-style points against his rival in the places it matters most. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, for example, Obama’s campaign spent nearly $400,000 Sunday to run two anti-McCain spots more than 600 times, accounting for roughly two thirds of his commercials for the day--a number that didn't quite match McCain's 85-percent negative rating over the same period, but came closer than most casual voters would expect. “If you can go quietly negative, that’s what he’s done,” CMAG president Evan Tracey told the Times. “I think the perception is that he’s still running the positive campaign. It’s a pretty smart, high-low, good cop/bad cop strategy."

In the past--as recently as 2004, even--it would've pretty difficult for a voter in, say, Brooklyn to get any sense of what was airing in Dayton. But now we have YouTube. Scouring the site, I've compiled a playlist of all the videos in Obama's quiet, ongoing anti-McCain onslaught--for your non-swing-state viewing pleasure. This isn't to suggest that Obama is going "more negative" than McCain (he's not, especially because most of his focus on "the issues"), or even that his "high-low" strategy is somehow unwise (frankly, attack ads work--and I can imagine many Democrats are pleased to see their man finally "hitting back.") But the fact remains that before Aug. 4, Obama's only "negative" ads bemoaned McCain's "low-road campaign" and came in direct response to Republican swipes; since then, he's unleashed 11* nine--by my count, at least--unprompted anti-McCain spots (some of which are misleading, according to Factcheck.org). That's a change worth noting.

Broadcast information and/or factcheck.org analysis included where available:

1. "Never" (Atlanta)
"Draw[s] a connection between Republican John McCain's decision not to call Ralph Reed before a Senate panel and Reed's involvement in an Atlanta fund-raiser this week." (Atlanta Journal Constitution)

2. "Three Times"
Calls McCain's tax plan "more of the same."

3. "Punch" (Ohio)
"Spotlights John McCain's role in helping pave the way for foreign-owned DHL to take over an American shipping company and put more than 8,200 jobs at risk in Wilmington, Ohio." (Obama campaign)

Factcheck.org: "Ads from the AFL-CIO and the Obama campaign claim that McCain is partly to blame for the loss of more than 8,000 jobs in Ohio. They paint a false picture." 

4. "Fix the Economy" (Philadelphia; East Lansing, Mich.; Green Bay, Wis.; and at least five other major cities)
Asks "How can John McCain fix the economy when he doesn't think it's broken?"

Factcheck.org: "An Obama ad uses dated and out of context quotes to portray McCain as clueless on the economy. " 

CONTINUED AFTER THE JUMP...
 

More

Is Tom Ridge a ruse?

As regular Stumper readers will recognize, I've lately been a bit, shall we say, boosterish on the whole idea of John McCain picking the pro-choice former Pennsylvania governor as his running mate. Last Thursday, I reacted to McCain's statement that Ridge's abortion stance wouldn't "necessarily rule [him] out" with a long post on why "Ridge looks increasingly possible." The following day, I responded to conservative outrage by saying "I suspect that McCain really wants Ridge on his team, and may even believe that the centrist strength of a McCain-Ridge ticket would more than offset any losses on the right." By Monday, I was claiming that Ridge's assurance that he would "echo" McCain's beliefs as veep and the simultaneous reports that "the McCain campaign has been calling key state GOP officials around the country... and sounding them out about the consequences of a pro-choice VP pick" signaled that Team McCain "may be more willing to take the plunge than the naysayers have anticipated." And yesterday I flat out predicted that McCain would pick Ridge as his partner.

Could my breathless, junkie-ish, uninformed speculation have been wrong?. According to FOX News's Carl Cameron and Time's Mark Halperin, a handful of GOP sources--including a "strategist" and  "Republican National Committee officials"--are now telling reporters that "the presumptive GOP nominee is no longer considering former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge." Which is, of course, what cooler heads were saying all along--i.e., that McCain would never risk depressing Republican base turnout in an effort to regain some of his maverick cred, especially at the risk of turning the Republican convention into an ugly cage match. As conventional wisdom, that always made perfect sense. But no one seemed to be able to explain why McCain and Co. were running the idea by Republican activists and inflaming evangelical passions if they never intended to go with Ridge--at least not to my satisfaction.

That's not to say the chattering classes didn't try. Some pundits claimed that the pro-choice episode was an elaborately stage-managed charade meant to show swing voters that McCain remains an independent-minded iconoclast. Unfortunately, this theory ignored the fact that such a charade--which involves raising the possibility of a pro-choice veep just to inspire conservative outage before ultimately settling on a pro-lifer--would create the impression that McCain had (yet again?) bowed to the far right instead of following his own "maverick" instincts. As theater, it would, in other words, make him look weak, not strong--further emphasizing for moderates how far he's fallen since 2000. And the second major hypothesis--that McCain was using the episode to show the religious right how much its input matters to him--is simply laughable. There are far better ways to boost the evangelical ego than giving them the impression that you're soft on abortion.

So why am I suddenly willing to entertain the idea that my Ridgemania was a bit misguided? Because someone--namely, John Heilemann of New York magazine--has finally conjured up a theory that makes some sense. According to Heilemann, McCain probably felt pressured to make a bold pick earlier this summer, when he was trailing Obama by six to eight points in the polls; now that the race is essentially tied--thanks to gains among the Republican base and with Evangelicals in particular--a bold pick looks foolishly risky. What this means, writes Heilemann, is that "McCain and his people [may be] engaged in a bit of elaborate gamesmanship designed to make Evangelicals more grateful than they otherwise might be for the selection" of "a running mate who, despite being pro-life, the religious right has some qualms about." His name? Mitt Romney. Of course, this is still pure speculation. (Do we even need to include that disclaimer anymore?) But it does have the added benefit of explaining why the McCain machine has suddenly started spreading rumors about Joe Lieberman--a "longshot" who would, in our opinion, "bring little to the ticket." If you think social conservatives will be grateful not to see a pro-choice Republican as veep, the thinking goes, just imagine how they'll react to the absence of a pro-choice Democrat.

With that in mind, it's worth remembering that Romney would make a pretty good running mate--assuming that McCain and Co. can sell the Mormon pol as a concession to evangelicals rather than an affront. As we've already written, Mitt is a proven vote-getter who would "help dispel doubts about the managerial and economic acumen of his partner, a career legislator"; b) "could very well boost his boss's bid in the increasingly purple swing state of Michigan, where his father was governor and the Romney brand is strong"; c) "could also help close the massive fundraising gap between McCain and Barack Obama" thanks to his "proven skill at soliciting donations and a personal fortune of $250 million"; and d) "would probably do the most of all the potential picks to excite dispirited, ground-level Republicans." On June 30--pre-Ridgemania--I even concluded "that Romney is the man to watch." If Heilemann's theory is right--and I certainly think it's possible--he may be again.

At the very least, Team McCain has deftly used the pro-choice "trial balloons" to accomplish an important goal: "inserting itself into the media narrative at times when the assumption that Obama was going to own a week." As MSNBC's First Readers rightly note, "with Obama’s VP selection coming up... the focus is supposed to be ALL on Obama. Yet instead, it's become a true split-screen story now that McCain's camp is purportedly considering Lieberman or Ridge for the No. 2 slot." Exhibit A: yours truly.

Those sneaky bastards. 

More